I have been wondering about the difference of Strategy and Tactics
Tactics is sometimes used incorrectly, as a synonym to strategy and vice versa. Tactic also is used to mean an order of something, a plan of something, an art of achieving something. I have also seen tactics used to be focused on the grand scheme, while strategies were employed for minor objectives.
While I don't dispute that tactics involve planning, goals, objectives ... they are not long range. This again falls under strategic.
Efficient tactics require leadership and a broad margin of adaptivity. Efficient tactics are ideally
almost perfect 'real world' implementations of a strategy. This is why there is much leeway in tactical reasoning, it is a requirement to leave room for adaptivity. However, inefficient tactics that are single-minded, things which seem like a good idea at the time, can often undermine a strategy and cause serious detriment (not sure if you watch Game of Thrones). The point I'm trying to make with that last statement is that tactics require a simple objective that is determined by the strategy. Efficient tactics still optimize resource usage
but the resources are already allocated or else they're available in the immediate environment. Either way, it does not involve distributing the entire resource pool available for the main objective of the war. That is for the strategist.
I think you're taking the standpoint that they're too similar to be differentiated like this? I should not say more until you clarify this.
Another definition I came across was that tactics are open to change/adaptive based on actual conditions, whereas strategies are much more resistant to change/indifferent to environmental conditions. This seems like repressed S.
After considering the issue at no great length, I think that it's safe to say that tactical reasoning of the highest efficiency probably goes strictly to SP (and
maybe NP) types with NJ types falling way behind. The assumption here is that one must be a P, basically. Although I am a little reluctant to state with certainty that NP has any real tactical strength at this time... overall it seems like a weak interpretation. I'm not going to consider it again without an enhancement.
I would disagree that tactics don't focus on human concerns (see morale), ethics (see conventions of war, see morale), long-range conservation (see winning or achieving with least sacrifice and effort, achieving efficiently)
Your tactics can include all these minor objectives as a part of the battle plan. I would also say that a good tactician, would do this, regardless whether this was the last battle, he would strive to win or realise his plan as efficiently as possible, including and considering everything that is relevant.
I would say efficient tactics address the needs of the moment
above all else. Once a battlefield commander or any NCO begins to think about the ethics of an order or objective they are
failing at their role as tactical implementation. However, an efficient strategist must consider everything (including his commanders' opinions) and not put himself in a position where he would be undermined.
A good tactician is both STP/NTJ, while a good Strategist is both NTP/STJ, with a minor dominance of S or N respectively.
Also the P/J is important to consider, while a Tactician can use J, there is also a need for information and consideration to the incoming. There is a perfect point at which further information is less and less relevant to the decision making and prolonged decision making is more and more detrimental to the outcome.
Initially I meant to compare it to Kiersey's line of thinking that N/S is the biggest or most important distinction (after I/E) between temperaments.
So I believe I first set out to demonstrate that SJ and SP types are superior tacticians and NJ and NP are superior strategists, while each naturally has inferior ability with the other type of reasoning.
Furthermore, although I argue S types are naturally superior tacticians, it is less important whether one is an F or T; it has less effect on the overall efficiency of tactical implementation, but it is more important to distinguish between SP and SJ types as each will have a very different tactical approach.
Same goes for NT/NF I suppose. Here the T/F distinction makes a
bigger impact on the nature of the strategy than J/P.
Can't say I'm ready to abandon it just yet.
If you want me to conjure up some archetypes as an example:
The NT strategist - Here is somebody who is unwavering, cunning, in-control, efficient and calculating. Strategies will not put any major emphasis on the human aspect, for good or for bad, it will be a mere consequence. All moves are decisive moves towards the main objective.
The NF strategist - This strategist
does emphasize the human component, again, for good or for bad. Strategic moves will still be decisive gains toward the main objective however ethics and morality is at the forefront of decisive planning.
The SJ tactician - This tactician is probably going to most resemble a strategist. The reason for this is they will be more inclined to compare their current environment with their subjective sensations to create a plan, particularly something that has worked in the past or specifically something to address the mistakes. Although it might resemble a strategy, the key distinction is that they are still addressing the needs of the moment, their current environment. Thus, they fall into the role of tactician.
The SP tactician - Here is somebody who is going to be quick and decisive in a fast paced environment. This type of tactician is extremely clever and resourceful and will make use of his resources in a most efficient manner. Actively represses intuition and focuses energy on the task at hand.
Both types of tacticians can be counted on to devise their own methods of achieving an objective, in fact they will prefer it, and it is a very complementary style as a strategy often avoids any sort of details with regards to tactical implementation
unless it affects something larger and more resounding,
probably because they have inferior tactical ability.
can't say i identify with either of them
is there some third thing?
Yes, it's called neutral observer, dominant Ti, INTP. It goes by many names, and faces. I suppose tactical and strategic thinking both presuppose a certain degree of participation which you may just be disinclined toward.
I'm talking a little bit more about the ways people try to achieve objectives. This presupposes 1. an objective, and 2. active attempts to achieve the objective.
There is always the 'some third thing' where one actively attempts to achieve nothing/has an objective but passively attempts to achieve it/doesn't attempt anything\has no objective/ << all have been ruled out.
